[Dev] Parabola stance on game assets
pribib at bluehome.net
Sat Sep 29 02:28:56 GMT 2018
On 28/09/18 20:17, Freemor wrote:
> CC'ing back into the list beacuse I assume that was where you meant it to go
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 07:36:19PM +0100, pribib wrote:
> I see where you are going the but your premise seems flawed. You are failing to
> recognize that the vast majority of content on websites is non-free. I can not
> take a random picture from a website modify it and then claim it to be my own.
> In fact most thing I do not even have the right to re-distribute at all.
> So if you are arguing youtube-dl is mostly to access non-free works then so is
> a browser, with very few exceptions. Even the FSF licenses many of their posts
> CC-BY-ND. Thus not free.
I have attempted to highlight the differences but if that is your
perspective, then OK, then that's what I am arguing. Does the inclusion
of web browsers suggest Parabola endorses nonfree cultural works?
If not then it would appear that the line cannot be drawn at "tools that
mostly provide access to nonfree works" because of web browsers.
Therefore there is no need to patch or remove games that enable a user
to access nonfree works because web browsers do the same. If as, bill
has stated, devs can implement the line wherever they feel without
confirmation from other devs and this is your opinion then I would ask
you personally to draw the line here and maintain packages such as
OpenRA and an unpatched version of OpenMW.
If so please remove web browsers.
From bill's statements, developers as it stands have the ability to
decide what kind of cultural works their users can access based on their
own personal level of support for free culture. Personal political
opinions of individual developers should not be imposed on users.
> Dev mailing list
> Dev at lists.parabola.nu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Dev